Councillors: Spare us the costs of yet another inquiry

On Monday evening last week, I attended the Elmbridge west area planning sub-committee meeting at which they considered, and rejected, the application to build 27 houses on land at 22-28 Stoke Road, Cobham.

I had read the detailed and thorough briefing paper prepared by the planning department officers, compiled, it has to be said, after many months of consultation, negotiation and amendment with the applicants, Nicholas King Homes.

The officers’ recommendation was that the plan be approved, subject to the satisfactory provision of “affordable housing” off site. This condition was met to the officers’ satisfaction by the applicant’s proposal to provide seven such dwellings at another site within the borough.

Having sat through the meeting I can only hope that proceedings of Elmbridge Council’s other committees do not display such a deplorable lack of clarity and grasp.

One has to assume that the councillors’ agenda is different from the one that was in front of them. They chose to ignore the advice of the officers, which, of course, they have every right so to do, but on confusing and contradictory grounds.

Councillor Bartlett: “I am recommending that this scheme be rejected on grounds of density and affordable housing.”

Councillor Taylor: “The density of housing on the site is very, very much higher than the housing on the surrounding facility.”

They had all, presumably, overlooked the fact that, if refused, the developers will certainly appeal, and have already launched a parallel application to build 57, not 27, houses on the same site.

Given Mr Prescott’s support for increased densities, the result of the sub-committee action will be to have more than doubled the number of dwellings on the site and at ratepayers’ expense for two appeals and inquiries.

Do they need reminding that Elmbridge Council has already incurred huge legal costs for a previous lost inquiry over the apartments at the entrance to this very site?

Can sanity prevail? Yes, of course it can.

Fortunately, the decision of the sub-committee is only a recommendation. It is up to the full planning and licensing committee to make the final decision when it meets on August 26.

One has to hope that sanity will prevail and Stoke Road will be spared their less-preferred option of 57 houses and that the ratepayers of Elmbridge will also be spared the costs of yet another failed expensive inquiry.